Grace Millane
-
@canefan said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial the fact that she either instigated it or at least was a willing participant would seem to blow murder out of the water. He still engaged in reckless behavior that led to her death and, as you mentioned he did a bunch of terrible stuff afterwards, it will be interesting to see what they can make stick
I suppose it comes to whether you can make 'reckless' stick, as you say.
Let's say you are drunk and ask your drunk mate to drive you home. In this case he is acting illegally to start with but for the sake of argument let's say you both consented to the risk.
He then speeds and loses control, crashes and you die. The charge for this (even though you died from his illegal actions) is a lesser one than murder. Causing death from drinking and driving is 'up to 10 years' punishment.So in this case a consensual but legal act, risky because of drink and (if proved) an increased risk by one party not being in control. Does that warrant a murder conviction? I'd argue not.
Anyway, still some of the case to run and the judge's legal summary. Will be interesting.
If he is convicted for murder though, you can guarantee an appeal.
-
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
After only one day of the defence I am wondering how this case even came to being tested on a murder charge.
The big key, which the prosecution quite obviously ignored is that Grace was very much into BDSM, had sign ons to a number of BDSM boards/sites and had told friends how she liked playing like that.
Now it could still be that he got carried away, or that the pissed state they were in meant that they didn't have the control over a dangerous act, but the argument that this was instigated by him is rapidly vanishing. He may well have lied about everything else and we still will never know exactly what happened but the story that she asked him to get rough and use asphyxiation is not only supported but likely.
Surely the investigators/prosecutors must have known all of this?
I can see now why name suppression was successfully argued. If this does turn out to be misadventure then casting him as a murderer would be unfair. Most certainly though, he should be exposed afterwards for despicably trying to cover things up and causing even more pain to her family.A similar high profile example in the UK (of death not cover up) was the guy convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence when he took his date out on a speedboat on the Thames late at night after they had both got hammered. He crashed the boat and she died. At the time I actually thought that there was a lack of acknowledgement in that case for her part in proceedings. She was a willing (if drunk) party to getting on the boat. She wasn't forced into the situation or so drunk that she couldn't have assessed the risk herself. He did act recklessly though once on the boat by going too fast and capsizing.
The reason I make the comparison is that both parties were willing, both parties were drunk, they took a risk and he then increased that risk. There was no thought of a murder charge.Maybe the prosecution here are deliberately aiming high to test and show that a higher charge was tested in fairness?
I know some here will come up with a conspiracy theory of govt pressure but to be fair when a young women goes missing and her body is stuffed in a suitcase and buried you are probably obliged to test that her death was deliberate or through the accused knowing he was at fault.When the story first broke I thought she might have oded and he freaked out rather than her encountering some random predator while travelling . It’s part of the reason I thought it was wrong for the pm to involve herself in the conversation before the facts were known .
Now the truth has come out “ you should have been able to indulge your sadomasochistic fetishes with random strangers you met in the Internet in another part of the world but you weren’t “ doesn’t have the same ring to it .Feel really sorry for the parents , first losing a daughter than having the most private parts of her life known to any stranger anywhere following the case.
-
@jegga said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
After only one day of the defence I am wondering how this case even came to being tested on a murder charge.
The big key, which the prosecution quite obviously ignored is that Grace was very much into BDSM, had sign ons to a number of BDSM boards/sites and had told friends how she liked playing like that.
Now it could still be that he got carried away, or that the pissed state they were in meant that they didn't have the control over a dangerous act, but the argument that this was instigated by him is rapidly vanishing. He may well have lied about everything else and we still will never know exactly what happened but the story that she asked him to get rough and use asphyxiation is not only supported but likely.
Surely the investigators/prosecutors must have known all of this?
I can see now why name suppression was successfully argued. If this does turn out to be misadventure then casting him as a murderer would be unfair. Most certainly though, he should be exposed afterwards for despicably trying to cover things up and causing even more pain to her family.A similar high profile example in the UK (of death not cover up) was the guy convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence when he took his date out on a speedboat on the Thames late at night after they had both got hammered. He crashed the boat and she died. At the time I actually thought that there was a lack of acknowledgement in that case for her part in proceedings. She was a willing (if drunk) party to getting on the boat. She wasn't forced into the situation or so drunk that she couldn't have assessed the risk herself. He did act recklessly though once on the boat by going too fast and capsizing.
The reason I make the comparison is that both parties were willing, both parties were drunk, they took a risk and he then increased that risk. There was no thought of a murder charge.Maybe the prosecution here are deliberately aiming high to test and show that a higher charge was tested in fairness?
I know some here will come up with a conspiracy theory of govt pressure but to be fair when a young women goes missing and her body is stuffed in a suitcase and buried you are probably obliged to test that her death was deliberate or through the accused knowing he was at fault.When the story first broke I thought she might have oded and he freaked out rather than her encountering some random predator while travelling . It’s part of the reason I thought it was wrong for the pm to involve herself in the conversation before the facts were known .
Now the truth has come out “ you should have been able to indulge your sadomasochistic fetishes with random strangers you met in the Internet in another part of the world but you weren’t “ doesn’t have the same ring to it .Feel really sorry for the parents , first losing a daughter than having the most private parts of her life known to any stranger anywhere following the case.
I don’t dismiss your point but the media (and social media) has a lot to answer for. Attractive backpacker goes missing and turns up dead makes great clicks and headlines. This creates a narrative and pressure that doesn’t wait for facts to be gathered.
Bet all those people that marched on vigils feel a bit silly now.
This will be a big lesson on how responses need to be tempered and clear to shut down off the mark damaging rumors.
The PMs comments were a well intended but misguided attempt at damage control IMO. -
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
@jegga said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
After only one day of the defence I am wondering how this case even came to being tested on a murder charge.
The big key, which the prosecution quite obviously ignored is that Grace was very much into BDSM, had sign ons to a number of BDSM boards/sites and had told friends how she liked playing like that.
Now it could still be that he got carried away, or that the pissed state they were in meant that they didn't have the control over a dangerous act, but the argument that this was instigated by him is rapidly vanishing. He may well have lied about everything else and we still will never know exactly what happened but the story that she asked him to get rough and use asphyxiation is not only supported but likely.
Surely the investigators/prosecutors must have known all of this?
I can see now why name suppression was successfully argued. If this does turn out to be misadventure then casting him as a murderer would be unfair. Most certainly though, he should be exposed afterwards for despicably trying to cover things up and causing even more pain to her family.A similar high profile example in the UK (of death not cover up) was the guy convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence when he took his date out on a speedboat on the Thames late at night after they had both got hammered. He crashed the boat and she died. At the time I actually thought that there was a lack of acknowledgement in that case for her part in proceedings. She was a willing (if drunk) party to getting on the boat. She wasn't forced into the situation or so drunk that she couldn't have assessed the risk herself. He did act recklessly though once on the boat by going too fast and capsizing.
The reason I make the comparison is that both parties were willing, both parties were drunk, they took a risk and he then increased that risk. There was no thought of a murder charge.Maybe the prosecution here are deliberately aiming high to test and show that a higher charge was tested in fairness?
I know some here will come up with a conspiracy theory of govt pressure but to be fair when a young women goes missing and her body is stuffed in a suitcase and buried you are probably obliged to test that her death was deliberate or through the accused knowing he was at fault.When the story first broke I thought she might have oded and he freaked out rather than her encountering some random predator while travelling . It’s part of the reason I thought it was wrong for the pm to involve herself in the conversation before the facts were known .
Now the truth has come out “ you should have been able to indulge your sadomasochistic fetishes with random strangers you met in the Internet in another part of the world but you weren’t “ doesn’t have the same ring to it .Feel really sorry for the parents , first losing a daughter than having the most private parts of her life known to any stranger anywhere following the case.
I don’t dismiss your point but the media (and social media) has a lot to answer for. Attractive backpacker goes missing and turns up dead makes great clicks and headlines. This creates a narrative and pressure that doesn’t wait for facts to be gathered.
Bet all those people that marched on vigils feel a bit silly now.
This will be a big lesson on how responses need to be tempered and clear to shut down off the mark damaging rumors.
The PMs comments were a well intended but misguided attempt at damage control IMO.I forgot about the vigils , how cringy .
I’m sure most people have parts of their life they’d rather keep private and it’s unfortunate and sad when it comes out this way particularly when the pm has put her on a pedestal like she did .
-
-
@nzzp said in Grace Millane:
@jegga said in Grace Millane:
I’m sure most people have parts of their life they’d rather keep private
Imagine if your internet history was made public in death. Fark that, but that's basically what she's getting.
Mine ? @Catogrande has mentioned it a few times. I hope I’m not alive if it’s ever made public.
-
@jegga said in Grace Millane:
@nzzp said in Grace Millane:
@jegga said in Grace Millane:
I’m sure most people have parts of their life they’d rather keep private
Imagine if your internet history was made public in death. Fark that, but that's basically what she's getting.
Mine ? @Catogrande has mentioned it a few times. I hope I’m not alive if it’s ever made public.
Mine or yours? Probably doesn't really matter.
-
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
@jegga said in Grace Millane:
.
The PM ... well intended but misguided ...Inconceivable
-
@booboo said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
@jegga said in Grace Millane:
.
The PM ... well intended but misguided ...Inconceivable
True.
I'd prefer that to poorly intended and misguided though.Lots of lessons being learned around this one.
-
@Crucial apparently the 2 witnesses they called who were on the BDSM app she was on, never met with her.
-
Funny how that changes everything. BDSM is dodgy as all hell especially with young folk and especially with strangers One of my first serious gf's was into the whole asphyxiation thing, I soon found out she didn't have a 'stop' switch either freaked me out, something exciting about being that close to death? I distinctly remember telling myself do not ever try this shit while drunk.
-
Wow. Defence has finished already. Their case was that everything done in the room was normal within the bounds of consensual sex and that she was open to BDSM.
They have totally ignored his behaviour except to state that it was explainable by him panicking and not wanting to get the blame.
-
@taniwharugby said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial apparently the 2 witnesses they called who were on the BDSM app she was on, never met with her.
There was evidence that she may have met one i.e.arrangements were made
-
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
Wow. Defence has finished already. Their case was that everything done in the room was normal within the bounds of consensual sex and that she was open to BDSM.
They have totally ignored his behaviour except to state that it was explainable by him panicking and not wanting to get the blame.
You can't justify all the bad shit he did so I guess they figure why dredge it up and cloud the main issue
-
It's not looking flash for the prosecution, but apparently she had heard of safe words (and similar options), so the defense can't easily rely on inexperience of not having a safe word and just continuing without noticing anything - might be the pathway to showing recklessness and therefore murder. The act that caused death was intentional (in that they were engaging in choking/neck pressure deliberately), so mens rea is there in that sense, but the prosecution has to convince the jury that precautions should have been taken, but weren't, and therefore that the choking was illegal at a level of recklessness to be murder. Alternatively, they have to convince the jury that he intended to cause death - an argument along the lines of "she died when he deliberately choked her, it looks like murder because it is, as shown by the physical evidence, and look at all these inconsistencies in his story".
Alcohol tends to be difficult to use as a mitigating factor - courts and juries have historically been reluctant to buy it as a defence to much. Here, it lessens inhibitions and judgement so could be a mitigating factor in that sense, but on the other hand, that adds to the recklessness narrative.
@Virgil I think manslaughter could be an option if the jury decides the choking wasn't intended to cause death or reckless, but was illegal - being drunk might play into that.
Since someone asked, drink driving causing death is below manslaughter in the hierarchy, but not that common as a charge any more because police have tended to prosecute for manslaughter instead in most instances on the basic grounds that drink driving is illegal and a deliberate act, and therefore it's culpable homicide which is not murder.
-
Looking a bit stronger for the opposition when they outline their case in the summing up.
Basically they maintain (supported by their witnesses) a situation of 'reckless intent'
The Crown doesn't have to prove the defendant intended to kill Grace Millane," he begins.
"I want to make a few points clear at the outset in the hope they might carry through with you. There is more than one method by which a verdict of murder may be returned."
"You may form the view that he didn't intend to kill Grace - and i'll be asking you to consider that very seriously - but in the end, the Crown only has to prove [beyond a reasonable doubt] "reckless intent".
"That is that the defendant knew he was causing harm that might cause death, he was aware of that risk, and he took it, and as a result of taking that risk, death occurred.
"That is reckless intent, conscious risk taking. You can kill someone by conscious risk taking and in this country that is murder," he tells the jury.
"So when I speak of the recklessness of the defendant, if you are satisfied you knew he was doing something that may be likely to cause harm, he appreciated that risk and took it - then he is guilty of murder.
They have pointed to his 'manner' in lying that is inconsistent with someone panicking and trying to avoid blame and singled out the lack of difference between his proven lies and the story he gave about the death. Pointed out that he took photos of her while dead as inconsistent with someone worried about blame for something they didn't do.
Also have declared that he would have had to have continued strangulation long after she went limp or unconscious to kill her. (this is the scientific opinion that the defence has tried to counter.
So basically are saying that while she may have asked for asphyxiation as part of sex he took the opportunity to go further at the spur of the moment then tried to work out how to deal with the situation afterwards.
-
*"That is that the defendant knew he was causing harm that might cause death, he was aware of that risk, and he took it, and as a result of taking that risk, death occurred.
"That is reckless intent, conscious risk taking. You can kill someone by conscious risk taking and in this country that is murder," he tells the jury*
That's interesting given the context of the case - if anyone is participating in consenting BDSM, with all the checks/balances (safe words etc), then you are still subject to a possible murder charge if it goes wrong? Rather than a manslaughter/accidental death charge? Acknowledging that this is the edge case of things going as wrong as possible.
Edit - meant to ask about impaired decision making also - if they both were pissed then what? the above clarification implies conscious decision-making and actions. So his state of inebriation or whatever has no bearing?
-
@Paekakboyz said in Grace Millane:
*"That is that the defendant knew he was causing harm that might cause death, he was aware of that risk, and he took it, and as a result of taking that risk, death occurred.
"That is reckless intent, conscious risk taking. You can kill someone by conscious risk taking and in this country that is murder," he tells the jury*
That's interesting given the context of the case - if anyone is participating in consenting BDSM, with all the checks/balances (safe words etc), then you are still subject to a possible murder charge if it goes wrong? Rather than a manslaughter/accidental death charge? Acknowledging that this is the edge case of things going as wrong as possible.
Edit - meant to ask about impaired decision making also - if they both were pissed then what? the above clarification implies conscious decision-making and actions. So his state of inebriation or whatever has no bearing?
This is where the judge comes in. To clarify all of that (I hope)
